Produced by John Bickers, David Widger and Others
THE PRINCE
by Nicolo Machiavelli
Translated by W. K. Marriott
Nicolo Machiavelli, born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. From 1494 to 1512
held an official post at Florence which included diplomatic missions to
various European courts. Imprisoned in Florence, 1512; later exiled and
returned to San Casciano. Died at Florence on 22nd June 1527.
INTRODUCTION
Nicolo Machiavelli was born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. He was the
second son of Bernardo di Nicolo Machiavelli, a lawyer of some repute,
and of Bartolommea di Stefano Nelli, his wife. Both parents were members
of the old Florentine nobility.
His life falls naturally into three periods, each of which singularly
enough constitutes a distinct and important era in the history of
Florence. His youth was concurrent with the greatness of Florence as an
Italian power under the guidance of Lorenzo de' Medici, Il Magnifico.
The downfall of the Medici in Florence occurred in 1494, in which year
Machiavelli entered the public service. During his official career
Florence was free under the government of a Republic, which lasted
until 1512, when the Medici returned to power, and Machiavelli lost his
office. The Medici again ruled Florence from 1512 until 1527, when they
were once more driven out. This was the period of Machiavelli's literary
activity and increasing influence; but he died, within a few weeks of
the expulsion of the Medici, on 22nd June 1527, in his fifty-eighth
year, without having regained office.
YOUTH - Aet. 1-25 - 1469-94
Although there is little recorded of the youth of Machiavelli, the
Florence of those days is so well known that the early environment of
this representative citizen may be easily imagined. Florence has been
described as a city with two opposite currents of life, one directed by
the fervent and austere Savonarola, the other by the splendour-loving
Lorenzo. Savonarola's influence upon the young Machiavelli must have
been slight, for although at one time he wielded immense power over the
fortunes of Florence, he only furnished Machiavelli with a subject of
a gibe in "The Prince," where he is cited as an example of an unarmed
prophet who came to a bad end. Whereas the magnificence of the Medicean
rule during the life of Lorenzo appeared to have impressed Machiavelli
strongly, for he frequently recurs to it in his writings, and it is to
Lorenzo's grandson that he dedicates "The Prince."
Machiavelli, in his "History of Florence," gives us a picture of the
young men among whom his youth was passed. He writes: "They were freer
than their forefathers in dress and living, and spent more in other
kinds of excesses, consuming their time and money in idleness, gaming,
and women; their chief aim was to appear well dressed and to speak with
wit and acuteness, whilst he who could wound others the most cleverly
was thought the wisest." In a letter to his son Guido, Machiavelli shows
why youth should avail itself of its opportunities for study, and leads
us to infer that his own youth had been so occupied. He writes: "I
have received your letter, which has given me the greatest pleasure,
especially because you tell me you are quite restored in health, than
which I could have no better news; for if God grant life to you, and
to me, I hope to make a good man of you if you are willing to do your
share." Then, writing of a new patron, he continues: "This will turn
out well for you, but it is necessary for you to study; since, then, you
have no longer the excuse of illness, take pains to study letters and
music, for you see what honour is done to me for the little skill I
have. Therefore, my son, if you wish to please me, and to bring success
and honour to yourself, do right and study, because others will help you
if you help yourself."
OFFICE - Aet. 25-43 - 1494-1512
The second period of Machiavelli's life was spent in the service of the
free Republic of Florence, which flourished, as stated above, from
the expulsion of the Medici in 1494 until their return in 1512. After
serving four years in one of the public offices he was appointed
Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery, the Ten of Liberty
and Peace. Here we are on firm ground when dealing with the events of
Machiavelli's life, for during this time he took a leading part in
the affairs of the Republic, and we have its decrees, records,
and dispatches to guide us, as well as his own writings. A mere
recapitulation of a few of his transactions with the statesmen and
soldiers of his time gives a fair indication of his activities, and
supplies the sources from which he drew the experiences and characters
which illustrate "The Prince."
His first mission was in 1499 to Catherina Sforza, "my lady of Forli" of
"The Prince," from whose conduct and fate he drew the moral that it
is far better to earn the confidence of the people than to rely on
fortresses. This is a very noticeable principle in Machiavelli, and is
urged by him in many ways as a matter of vital importance to princes.
In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Louis XII for
continuing the war against Pisa: this king it was who, in his conduct
of affairs in Italy, committed the five capital errors in statecraft
summarized in "The Prince," and was consequently driven out. He, also,
it was who made the dissolution of his marriage a condition of support
to Pope Alexander VI; which leads Machiavelli to refer those who urge
that such promises should be kept to what he has written concerning the
faith of princes.
Machiavelli's public life was largely occupied with events arising out
of the ambitions of Pope Alexander VI and his son, Cesare Borgia, the
Duke Valentino, and these characters fill a large space of "The Prince."
Machiavelli never hesitates to cite the actions of the duke for the
benefit of usurpers who wish to keep the states they have seized; he
can, indeed, find no precepts to offer so good as the pattern of Cesare
Borgia's conduct, insomuch that Cesare is acclaimed by some critics as
the "hero" of "The Prince." Yet in "The Prince" the duke is in point of
fact cited as a type of the man who rises on the fortune of others, and
falls with them; who takes every course that might be expected from a
prudent man but the course which will save him; who is prepared for all
eventualities but the one which happens; and who, when all his abilities
fail to carry him through, exclaims that it was not his fault, but an
extraordinary and unforeseen fatality.
On the death of Pius III, in 1503, Machiavelli was sent to Rome to watch
the election of his successor, and there he saw Cesare Borgia cheated
into allowing the choice of the College to fall on Giuliano delle Rovere
(Julius II), who was one of the cardinals that had most reason to fear
the duke. Machiavelli, when commenting on this election, says that
he who thinks new favours will cause great personages to forget old
injuries deceives himself. Julius did not rest until he had ruined
Cesare.
It was to Julius II that Machiavelli was sent in 1506, when that pontiff
was commencing his enterprise against Bologna; which he brought to a
successful issue, as he did many of his other adventures, owing chiefly
to his impetuous character. It is in reference to Pope Julius that
Machiavelli moralizes on the resemblance between Fortune and women, and
concludes that it is the bold rather than the cautious man that will win
and hold them both.
It is impossible to follow here the varying fortunes of the Italian
states, which in 1507 were controlled by France, Spain, and Germany,
with results that have lasted to our day; we are concerned with those
events, and with the three great actors in them, so far only as they
impinge on the personality of Machiavelli. He had several meetings with
Louis XII of France, and his estimate of that monarch's character has
already been alluded to. Machiavelli has painted Ferdinand of Aragon as
the man who accomplished great things under the cloak of religion, but
who in reality had no mercy, faith, humanity, or integrity; and who,
had he allowed himself to be influenced by such motives, would have been
ruined. The Emperor Maximilian was one of the most interesting men
of the age, and his character has been drawn by many hands; but
Machiavelli, who was an envoy at his court in 1507-8, reveals the secret
of his many failures when he describes him as a secretive man, without
force of character - ignoring the human agencies necessary to carry
his schemes into effect, and never insisting on the fulfilment of his
wishes.
The remaining years of Machiavelli's official career were filled with
events arising out of the League of Cambrai, made in 1508 between the
three great European powers already mentioned and the pope, with the
object of crushing the Venetian Republic. This result was attained in
the battle of Vaila, when Venice lost in one day all that she had won in
eight hundred years. Florence had a difficult part to play during these
events, complicated as they were by the feud which broke out between
the pope and the French, because friendship with France had dictated the
entire policy of the Republic. When, in 1511, Julius II finally formed
the Holy League against France, and with the assistance of the Swiss
drove the French out of Italy, Florence lay at the mercy of the Pope,
and had to submit to his terms, one of which was that the Medici should
be restored. The return of the Medici to Florence on 1st September
1512, and the consequent fall of the Republic, was the signal for the
dismissal of Machiavelli and his friends, and thus put an end to his
public career, for, as we have seen, he died without regaining office.
LITERATURE AND DEATH - Aet. 43-58 - 1512-27
On the return of the Medici, Machiavelli, who for a few weeks had
vainly hoped to retain his office under the new masters of Florence, was
dismissed by decree dated 7th November 1512. Shortly after this he was
accused of complicity in an abortive conspiracy against the Medici,
imprisoned, and put to the question by torture. The new Medicean people,
Leo X, procured his release, and he retired to his small property at San
Casciano, near Florence, where he devoted himself to literature. In a
letter to Francesco Vettori, dated 13th December 1513, he has left
a very interesting description of his life at this period, which
elucidates his methods and his motives in writing "The Prince." After
describing his daily occupations with his family and neighbours, he
writes: "The evening being come, I return home and go to my study; at
the entrance I pull off my peasant-clothes, covered with dust and dirt,
and put on my noble court dress, and thus becomingly re-clothed I
pass into the ancient courts of the men of old, where, being lovingly
received by them, I am fed with that food which is mine alone; where I
do not hesitate to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of their
actions, and they in their benignity answer me; and for four hours I
feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty does not dismay,
death does not terrify me; I am possessed entirely by those great men.
And because Dante says:
Knowledge doth come of learning well retained,
Unfruitful else,
I have noted down what I have gained from their conversation, and have
composed a small work on 'Principalities,' where I pour myself out
as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a
principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how
they can be kept, why they are lost: and if any of my fancies ever
pleased you, this ought not to displease you: and to a prince,
especially to a new one, it should be welcome: therefore I dedicate it
to his Magnificence Giuliano. Filippo Casavecchio has seen it; he will
be able to tell you what is in it, and of the discourses I have had with
him; nevertheless, I am still enriching and polishing it."
The "little book" suffered many vicissitudes before attaining the form
in which it has reached us. Various mental influences were at work
during its composition; its title and patron were changed; and for some
unknown reason it was finally dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici. Although
Machiavelli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent or
presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence that Lorenzo
ever received or even read it: he certainly never gave Machiavelli any
employment. Although it was plagiarized during Machiavelli's lifetime,
"The Prince" was never published by him, and its text is still
disputable.
Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: "And as to this little
thing [his book], when it has been read it will be seen that during the
fifteen years I have given to the study of statecraft I have neither
slept nor idled; and men ought ever to desire to be served by one who
has reaped experience at the expense of others. And of my loyalty none
could doubt, because having always kept faith I could not now learn how
to break it; for he who has been faithful and honest, as I have, cannot
change his nature; and my poverty is a witness to my honesty."
Before Machiavelli had got "The Prince" off his hands he commenced his
"Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livius," which should be read
concurrently with "The Prince." These and several minor works occupied
him until the year 1518, when he accepted a small commission to look
after the affairs of some Florentine merchants at Genoa. In 1519 the
Medicean rulers of Florence granted a few political concessions to
her citizens, and Machiavelli with others was consulted upon a new
constitution under which the Great Council was to be restored; but on
one pretext or another it was not promulgated.
In 1520 the Florentine merchants again had recourse to Machiavelli
to settle their difficulties with Lucca, but this year was chiefly
remarkable for his re-entry into Florentine literary society, where he
was much sought after, and also for the production of his "Art of War."
It was in the same year that he received a commission at the instance
of Cardinal de' Medici to write the "History of Florence," a task
which occupied him until 1525. His return to popular favour may have
determined the Medici to give him this employment, for an old writer
observes that "an able statesman out of work, like a huge whale, will
endeavour to overturn the ship unless he has an empty cask to play
with."
When the "History of Florence" was finished, Machiavelli took it to
Rome for presentation to his patron, Giuliano de' Medici, who had in
the meanwhile become pope under the title of Clement VII. It is somewhat
remarkable that, as, in 1513, Machiavelli had written "The Prince" for
the instruction of the Medici after they had just regained power in
Florence, so, in 1525, he dedicated the "History of Florence" to the
head of the family when its ruin was now at hand. In that year the
battle of Pavia destroyed the French rule in Italy, and left Francis I
a prisoner in the hands of his great rival, Charles V. This was followed
by the sack of Rome, upon the news of which the popular party at
Florence threw off the yoke of the Medici, who were once more banished.
Machiavelli was absent from Florence at this time, but hastened his
return, hoping to secure his former office of secretary to the "Ten of
Liberty and Peace." Unhappily he was taken ill soon after he reached
Florence, where he died on 22nd June 1527.
THE MAN AND HIS WORKS
No one can say where the bones of Machiavelli rest, but modern Florence
has decreed him a stately cenotaph in Santa Croce, by the side of her
most famous sons; recognizing that, whatever other nations may have
found in his works, Italy found in them the idea of her unity and the
germs of her renaissance among the nations of Europe. Whilst it is idle
to protest against the world-wide and evil signification of his name,
it may be pointed out that the harsh construction of his doctrine which
this sinister reputation implies was unknown to his own day, and that
the researches of recent times have enabled us to interpret him more
reasonably. It is due to these inquiries that the shape of an "unholy
necromancer," which so long haunted men's vision, has begun to fade.
Machiavelli was undoubtedly a man of great observation, acuteness, and
industry; noting with appreciative eye whatever passed before him, and
with his supreme literary gift turning it to account in his enforced
retirement from affairs. He does not present himself, nor is he
depicted by his contemporaries, as a type of that rare combination,
the successful statesman and author, for he appears to have been
only moderately prosperous in his several embassies and political
employments. He was misled by Catherina Sforza, ignored by Louis XII,
overawed by Cesare Borgia; several of his embassies were quite barren of
results; his attempts to fortify Florence failed, and the soldiery that
he raised astonished everybody by their cowardice. In the conduct of his
own affairs he was timid and time-serving; he dared not appear by the
side of Soderini, to whom he owed so much, for fear of compromising
himself; his connection with the Medici was open to suspicion, and
Giuliano appears to have recognized his real forte when he set him to
write the "History of Florence," rather than employ him in the state.
And it is on the literary side of his character, and there alone, that
we find no weakness and no failure.
Although the light of almost four centuries has been focused on "The
Prince," its problems are still debatable and interesting, because they
are the eternal problems between the ruled and their rulers. Such as
they are, its ethics are those of Machiavelli's contemporaries; yet they
cannot be said to be out of date so long as the governments of Europe
rely on material rather than on moral forces. Its historical incidents
and personages become interesting by reason of the uses which
Machiavelli makes of them to illustrate his theories of government and
conduct.
Leaving out of consideration those maxims of state which still furnish
some European and eastern statesmen with principles of action, "The
Prince" is bestrewn with truths that can be proved at every turn. Men
are still the dupes of their simplicity and greed, as they were in the
days of Alexander VI. The cloak of religion still conceals the vices
which Machiavelli laid bare in the character of Ferdinand of Aragon.
Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them
to be - and are ruined. In politics there are no perfectly safe courses;
prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones. Then - to pass to
a higher plane - Machiavelli reiterates that, although crimes may win
an empire, they do not win glory. Necessary wars are just wars, and
the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to
fight.
It is the cry of a far later day than Machiavelli's that government
should be elevated into a living moral force, capable of inspiring the
people with a just recognition of the fundamental principles of society;
to this "high argument" "The Prince" contributes but little. Machiavelli
always refused to write either of men or of governments otherwise than
as he found them, and he writes with such skill and insight that his
work is of abiding value. But what invests "The Prince" with more than
a merely artistic or historical interest is the incontrovertible truth
that it deals with the great principles which still guide nations and
rulers in their relationship with each other and their neighbours.
In translating "The Prince" my aim has been to achieve at all costs an
exact literal rendering of the original, rather than a fluent paraphrase
adapted to the modern notions of style and expression. Machiavelli was
no facile phrasemonger; the conditions under which he wrote obliged him
to weigh every word; his themes were lofty, his substance grave, his
manner nobly plain and serious. "Quis eo fuit unquam in partiundis
rebus, in definiendis, in explanandis pressior?" In "The Prince," it may
be truly said, there is reason assignable, not only for every word, but
for the position of every word. To an Englishman of Shakespeare's time
the translation of such a treatise was in some ways a comparatively easy
task, for in those times the genius of the English more nearly resembled
that of the Italian language; to the Englishman of to-day it is not so
simple. To take a single example: the word "intrattenere," employed by
Machiavelli to indicate the policy adopted by the Roman Senate towards
the weaker states of Greece, would by an Elizabethan be correctly
rendered "entertain," and every contemporary reader would understand
what was meant by saying that "Rome entertained the Aetolians and the
Achaeans without augmenting their power." But to-day such a phrase would
seem obsolete and ambiguous, if not unmeaning: we are compelled to say
that "Rome maintained friendly relations with the Aetolians," etc.,
using four words to do the work of one. I have tried to preserve the
pithy brevity of the Italian so far as was consistent with an absolute
fidelity to the sense. If the result be an occasional asperity I can
only hope that the reader, in his eagerness to reach the author's
meaning, may overlook the roughness of the road that leads him to it.
The following is a list of the works of Machiavelli:
Principal works. Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa, 1499; Del modo di
trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati, 1502; Del modo tenuto dal
duca Valentino nell' ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo,
etc., 1502; Discorso sopra la provisione del danaro, 1502; Decennale
primo (poem in terza rima), 1506; Ritratti delle cose dell' Alemagna,
1508-12; Decennale secondo, 1509; Ritratti delle cose di Francia, 1510;
Discorsi sopra la prima deca di T. Livio, 3 vols., 1512-17; Il Principe,
1513; Andria, comedy translated from Terence, 1513 (?); Mandragola,
prose comedy in five acts, with prologue in verse, 1513; Della
lingua (dialogue), 1514; Clizia, comedy in prose, 1515 (?); Belfagor
arcidiavolo (novel), 1515; Asino d'oro (poem in terza rima), 1517; Dell'
arte della guerra, 1519-20; Discorso sopra il riformare lo stato di
Firenze, 1520; Sommario delle cose della citta di Lucca, 1520; Vita
di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, 1520; Istorie fiorentine, 8 books,
1521-5; Frammenti storici, 1525.
Other poems include Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, and Canti carnascialeschi.
Editions. Aldo, Venice, 1546; della Tertina, 1550; Cambiagi, Florence, 6
vols., 1782-5; dei Classici, Milan, 10 1813; Silvestri, 9 vols., 1820-2;
Passerini, Fanfani, Milanesi, 6 vols. only published, 1873-7.
Minor works. Ed. F. L. Polidori, 1852; Lettere familiari, ed. E.
Alvisi, 1883, 2 editions, one with excisions; Credited Writings, ed.
G. Canestrini, 1857; Letters to F. Vettori, see A. Ridolfi, Pensieri
intorno allo scopo di N. Machiavelli nel libro Il Principe, etc.; D.
Ferrara, The Private Correspondence of Nicolo Machiavelli, 1929.
DEDICATION
To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:
Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are
accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most
precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one
often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and
similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness.
Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with
some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among
my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so
much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by
long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of
antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and
prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to
your Magnificence.
And although I may consider this work unworthy of your
countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity that it
may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a
better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in
the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and
with so many troubles and dangers; which work I have not
embellished with swelling or magnificent words, nor stuffed with
rounded periods, nor with any extrinsic allurements or adornments
whatever, with which so many are accustomed to embellish their
works; for I have wished either that no honour should be given it,
or else that the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the
theme shall make it acceptable.
Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presumption if a man
of low and humble condition dare to discuss and settle the
concerns of princes; because, just as those who draw landscapes
place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of
the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the
plains place themselves upon high mountains, even so to understand
the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to
understand that of princes it needs to be of the people.
Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit in
which I send it; wherein, if it be diligently read and considered
by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you should attain
that greatness which fortune and your other attributes promise.
And if your Magnificence from the summit of your greatness will
sometimes turn your eyes to these lower regions, you will see how
unmeritedly I suffer a great and continued malignity of fortune.
THE PRINCE
CHAPTER I - HOW MANY KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES THERE ARE, AND BY WHAT
MEANS THEY ARE ACQUIRED
All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been
and are either republics or principalities.
Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long
established; or they are new.
The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or
they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the
prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of
the King of Spain.
Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a
prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of
the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.
CHAPTER II - CONCERNING HEREDITARY PRINCIPALITIES
I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another
place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to
principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above,
and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states,
and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new
ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his
ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a
prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he
be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he
should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the
usurper, he will regain it.
We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have
withstood the attacks of the Venetians in '84, nor those of Pope Julius
in '10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the
hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it
happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause
him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be
naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration
of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for
one change always leaves the toothing for another.
CHAPTER III - CONCERNING MIXED PRINCIPALITIES
But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be
not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken
collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from
an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for
men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this
hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they
are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have
gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common
necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have
submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships
which he must put upon his new acquisition.
In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in
seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends
who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the
way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them,
feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed
forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill
of the natives.
For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied
Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it
only needed Lodovico's own forces; because those who had opened the
gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future
benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is
very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time,
they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with
little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the
delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the
weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was
enough for the Duke Lodovico(*) to raise insurrections on the borders;
but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring
the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and
driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.
(*) Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco
Sforza, who married Beatrice d'Este. He ruled over Milan
from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.
Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second
time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains
to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what
any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more
securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.
Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an
ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country
and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them,
especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and
to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the
prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other
things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live
quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and
Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and,
although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the
customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst
themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only
to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their
former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor
their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become
entirely one body with the old principality.
But when states are acquired in a country differing in language,
customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great
energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real
helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there.
This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made
that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures
taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would
not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders
are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one
is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one
can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged
by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the
prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and
wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state
from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince
resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest
difficulty.
The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places,
which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do
this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A
prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he
can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of
the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new
inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered,
are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily
kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it
should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In
conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more
faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being
poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men
ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge
themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot;
therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a
kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much
more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the
state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are
exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting
of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and
all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their
own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such
guards are as useless as a colony is useful.
Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects
ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful
neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care
that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get
a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be
introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of
ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were
brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where
they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the
usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters
a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred
which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to those
subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to
himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has
acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of
too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and
with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them,
so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not
properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and
whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.
The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these
measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with(*)
the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the
greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority.
Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and
Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was
humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and
Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor
did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends
without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them
agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the
Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do,
who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for
which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is
easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine
is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it
happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever,
that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to
detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or
treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to
cure. This it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise
have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they
can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen,
they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them,
there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles,
dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them
come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only
to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight
with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy;
they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that
ever please them which is for ever in the mouths of the wise ones of our
time: - Let us enjoy the benefits of the time - but rather the benefits of
their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and
is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.
(*) See remark in the introduction on the word
"intrattenere."
But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the
things mentioned. I will speak of Louis(*) (and not of Charles)(+) as
the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held
possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he
has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a
state composed of divers elements.
(*) Louis XII, King of France, "The Father of the People,"
born 1462, died 1515.
(+) Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.
King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who
desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I
will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a